Saturday, May 15, 2010

252: Righteous Men and Their Righteousness

Ezekiel 31-33
"If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done." - Ezekiel 33:13

God starts with yet another long metaphor, this time about Assyria being a tree. No other tree was ever as big or majestic as the tree that was Assyria. However, Assyria was a prideful tree. I didn't know trees could have pride in themselves. Because of this God tore the tree down and made all of the birds and animals of the land nest in it. Moral of the story: Don't be proud of yourself?

The next chapter is a lament for Pharaoh. Not only have we already had a lament for Egypt, but we've already had a lament for the king of Tyre that was almost exactly like this one. God explains how Pharaoh was once a great king but God is going to kill him and have his nation destroyed for all of his sins. When is the bible going to stop being repetitive and start being inspiring?

The third and final chapter of the day keeps up the boring and repetitive theme of the day. God reexplains that Ezekiel is supposed to tell the Israelites of their sins. If he doesn't tell them of their sins he is just as guilty as they are. God also explains (very repetitively) that righteous men have to stay righteous to avoid punishment for sin.

The rest of the chapter is God explaining why Jerusalem fell. As if we haven't heard that a hundred times already. At the end of the chapter God makes the observation that the people of Jerusalem don't take Ezekiel seriously. If God knows that the Israelites aren't listening to Ezekiel then why did he chose him as the messenger?

Joseph Klein is offended that some think the bible condones "redistribution of wealth".
The problem with the Left’s interpretation of the Bible is that they are confusing Biblical commandments to be charitable and do good works for the poor with justification for a big government taking money from successful people and redistributing it to those whom the government deems more worthy.
Right, because the government helping the poor isn't the same as just helping the poor. Since when is the government giving more "worthy" people money? I think the idea is that the government gives people money who need money (i.e. poor people).

He cites these passages as proof that the government shouldn't give money or services to poor people:
Exodus 23:3 nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute.

Leviticus 19:15 Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly

Deuteronomy 1:17 You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike.
These passages only refer to justice. I agree that poor people should not be exempt from being prosecuted for robbery or other crimes, but that's not what's happening. For example, is it not a form of justice to give everyone equal healthcare? Is it not unjust to withhold healthcare based on how much money someone has? The writer of the article conveniently forgets to mention the passage right next to Leviticus 19:15:
When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 19:9-10
That sounds like redistribution of wealth to me. Why is it that religious people want the government to interfere when it comes to some parts of Leviticus (i.e. gay marriage), but not others (i.e. give to the poor)? Either keep it all or throw it all out.

Friday, May 14, 2010

251: Wishful Thinking

Ezekiel 28-30
"They will live there in safety and will build houses and plant vineyards; they will live in safety when I inflict punishment on all their neighbors who maligned them. Then they will know that I am the LORD their God." - Ezekiel 28:26

[If you don't know me, you won't know that I've moved to Texas. The reason I'm mentioning it is that this blog is moving to central time. I make every effort to publish the blog in early afternoon, but I tend to get busy and sometimes I have to publish late (today for example). This means I reserve the right to publish between 12-1 am eastern time, though I hope I won't need to.]

Now that God has said he's going to destroy Tyre and had Ezekiel lament for the country, he sends down a prophecy for the king of Tyre as well. Couldn't we just presume that the king was going to be killed/sent away when the bible said that all of the people of Tyre were going to be killed or sent away? God has not yet mastered the fine art of brevity. This prophecy says that since the king of Tyre thinks he is God, God is going to have him killed at the hands of foreigners.

Next God has a prophecy about Sidon. God says that he is going to have Sidon destroyed so that they and the Israelites will know that God is really God. When has this ever worked before? God says that he is going to destroy people all the time to show his glory but it never quite seems to work. Especially when God has other countries destroy people, or has people killed in natural disasters. None of these show the glory of God unless you already believe that God causes everything.

The final two chapters for the day are a prophecy against Egypt, and a lament about Egypt. God says he's going to have the people of Egypt killed or spread out among foreigners for 40 years. After this 40 years he's going to allow them back. I'm not sure why they get this special treatment (being destroyed and brought back to your homeland is usually reserved for the Israelites). This brings up a big question, were the Egyptians ever kicked off their land for 40 years and then brought back? I'm not fluent in ancient Egyptian history.

God, in the lament about Egypt, tells the Egyptians that all of their allies will be killed and their idols will be wiped out of the land. At the end of the chapter God says that he has broken the arm of Pharaoh (is this literally or figuratively?). Immediately after this God says he's going to break both Pharaoh's arms, including the one he just got done breaking. He tells Ezekiel that he's going to strengthen the arms of Nebuchadnezzar so that he will be able to take on the Pharaoh. Pharaoh must be a bad ass if God needs to help Nebuchadnezzar defeat him after breaking both his arms.

The President of the American Bible society wrote an article lamenting the fact that 18-29 year olds have stopped reading the bible.
The Bible has yet to beat the perception of being a dusty old rule book among millennials largely because to substantiate relevance and garner interest, the text first must be read.
Speaking as a person who has read most of the bible, it comes off a lot like a dusty old rulebook. Sometimes it's also a dusty old history book, but that's not that much better.
As I see it, our job at the American Bible Society is to challenge the notion that the Bible is outdated and irrelevant, provide its content in a wide range of formats that appeal to millennials, and then demonstrate how the Bible addresses the most pressing issues of our day.
Again speaking as someone who's read most of the bible, it comes off as pretty outdated and irrelevant. Unfortunately, when the bible addresses the pressing issues of our day it tends to give the solution in a completely outdated way. Consider slavery. Using only the bible, would you conclude that slavery is abhorrent or acceptable? For an even more ridiculous example, consider working on the sabbath. If the bible was your only moral compass wouldn't you have to conclude that working on Sunday is the worst of offences? How is this relevant or not outdated?
When a reader is engaged, the Bible is a round-trip adventure, full of mystery and the miraculous. It is a sacred text that offers hope, contains the language for reconciliation for families, peoples, and tribes, and is a proven path toward the redemption of social injustices at home and around the world. In fact, a recent study by the Center for Bible Engagement found that individuals who read the Bible four or more time a week will curb or annihilate destructive behaviors like promiscuity and drug and alcohol abuse.
Whoa, whoa... Whoa. Wait a minute. What about Godly condemnation for the littlest offence offers hope? How can making some people infidels bring together families or tribes? And what kind of crazy study concluded that people reading the bible somehow correlates to less sex and less drug/alcohol consumption?
Even those with no appreciation for the spiritual benefits of reading the Bible should recognize what the decline of Bible readership means for America. Biblical literacy has formed the basis for a shared vocabulary, values system, and social mores in America. Without this common foundation, Americans are more disconnected from one another.
No appreciation for the spiritual benefits of reading the bible? *Check* However, I reject the assertion that the bible somehow brings people together, or somehow has a coherent values system. How can something that divides people based on race/gender/sexual identity in any way bring people together? As for the "values system". From what I've seen the bible doesn't even have an internally coherent values system (i.e. love your neighbor, but kill your neighbor if they worship idols). And the "values system" that people usually get out of the bible (i.e. don't have sex before marriage, don't be gay, etc.) isn't universally accepted/followed.

Lamar spends most of the rest of the article explaining that if only the American Bible Society could figure out all the social networking/communication the kids are using these days, people would start reading the bible again. Maybe it's just that people are starting to realize that the bible is completely insane (I certainly am).

Thursday, May 13, 2010

250: Sticks and Stones May Break Your Bones, but God Will Kill You

Ezekiel 25-27
"Because Moab and Seir said, 'Look, the house of Judah has become like all the other nations,' therefore I will expose the flank of Moab, beginning at its frontier towns—Beth Jeshimoth, Baal Meon and Kiriathaim—the glory of that land." - Ezekiel 25:8-9

This entire section is just a list of people that God is going to destroy for hurting Israel. God seems to be all for destroying Israel until someone actually does it. Then they must be punished because they are terrible people.

First on the chopping block is Ammon. They apparently said "Aha!" when Israel was desecrated. God says that, because of this, all the Ammonites must be destroyed. In fact, God says he is going to exterminate the Ammonites. God is going to destroy a civilization for doing exactly what he said he was going to do (i.e. destroy Israel)? God may not be all powerful, but he's certainly all hypocritical.

Next is Moab. They get much the same treatment as Ammon. This is because Moab said "Look, the house of Judah has become like all the other nations" when Judah was destroyed. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, much less why that's bad. Did the Moabites even do any destroying or did they just comment on Judah's destruction? I guess you have to watch your words very carefully around God.

Edom and Philistia are next. They both took revenge on Judah, for what I'm not sure. God says that, since they took revenge in anger, God is going to kill them all. Because God has never taken revenge in anger. God would never make it if he was held to his own standards.

The rest of the section (all of chapter 26 and 27) are about Tyre. Tyre, like the other nations, makes the mistake of commenting when Jerusalem (or Judah) is destroyed:
Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper
Uh oh, Tyre not only said that Jerusalem was destroyed, but they said that makes them happy! God is so upset with this that he spends the rest of the chapter explaining how he's going to destroy him, and an entire chapter after that telling Ezekiel what to say to Tyre.

God says that he's going to send the Babylonians after Tyre and they will utterly destroy them. The timber and rubble from their city will be thrown into the sea. Again, did the people of Tyre actually do anything to hurt the Israelites or did they just comment on how they could be more prosperous without the competition?

In God's message to Tyre, he explains to them how prosperous they were before they pissed off God. What lesson is this teaching? God is just rubbing it in. Again, God acts like an immature brat.

Last weekend Chief Justice of Mississippi Bill Waller cited the bible in the Mississippi State commencement address he gave.
Waller, who was appointed chief justice last year, pointed graduates to one of his favorite Bible verses. He had the nerve to quote the rhetorical challenge of Micah 6:8 - "And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
In context, the writer of the article is being sarcastic when he says that he had the "nerve". I, however, am not being sarcastic. It does take some nerve to quote a bible verse that tells you to walk with the Christian God in a place where there is sure to be dissenting viewpoints. Who does it hurt to have a secular graduation ceremony? I usually don't mind if people are offended, but on a day that is supposed to be a celebration for everyone it seems appropriate to do everything you can to not offend or exclude anyone.

The author of this opinion piece uses this as a launching point for a discussion about the ten commandments in courthouses:
It hardly mattered Moore contended that the Ten Commandments are the "moral foundation" of U.S. law or that even the U.S. Supreme Court building contains a statue of Moses as one of the world's lawgivers. Nor did it matter that the preamble to the Alabama Constitution says that the state "established justice by 'invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God.'"

The fact of the matter is somewhere along the way in recent American history the courts in this land got lost and started misinterpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as totally prohibiting religion from the public arena.

Actually, all the clause really does is prohibit Congress from designating a particular denomination as the state church.
He can contend that the ten commandments are the moral foundation of US law, but that's simply untrue. I agree that the establishment clause does prohibit the promotion of one religion over another. How does putting the ten commandments in courthouses not fall under this prohibition? Is he trying to claim that the ten commandments are somehow universal to all religions? I'm calling bullshit. Somehow I don't think this writer would be so receptive to religion in public buildings if people wanted to put the Koran in court houses.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

249: The Bible on Donkey Penis

Ezekiel 23-24
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." - Ezekiel 23:20

Chapter 23 is a long metaphor about two sisters Oholah and Oholibah, representing Samaria and Jerusalem respectively. Both of these sisters grow up to be prostitutes. Oholah was a prostitute for the Assyrians. God was so angry with her that he had the Assyrians kill her and take away her children.

Oholibah sees her sister's death but does not stop her prostitution. In fact she takes it one step further. She goes to the Babylonians and has sex with them. Disgusted by the Babylonians, she moves on to the Egyptians. She decides to stay with the Egyptians because their penises are like donkey penises and their semen is like horse semen. Thanks for that image, bible. I feel like I'm reading ancient porn. Kids are allowed to read this book why?

God then goes on to set up a gang bang of Oholibah. No shit:
The noise of a carefree crowd was around her; Sabeans [drunk people] were brought from the desert along with men from the rabble, and they put bracelets on the arms of the woman and her sister and beautiful crowns on their heads. Then I [God] said about the one worn out by adultery, 'Now let them use her as a prostitute, for that is all she is.'
Are these two sisters just a metaphor, or did God actually orchestrate the gang rape of a prostitute? If they are just a metaphor, then what is the meaning of Egypt having penises like a donkey?

In chapter 24 Jerusalem is invaded. God has yet another metaphor that he insists Ezekiel act out. This time God takes it a bit too far. Ezekiel talks to God, and God tells him that he is going to kill his wife. Ezekiel is forbidden from mourning his wife's death. This is so that, when the Israelites hear about the destruction of Jerusalem, they will see how Ezekiel isn't mourning and they will follow suit. God just killed a human being to make a point? What an ass hole.

New conversion method: Jobs(?).

I find this story hilarious (maybe a little sad). Laid off teachers are coming back to or even converting to Catholicism for a chance at a job teaching at a Catholic school. To prove that you're a Catholic you have to get a letter from a priest, so teachers have been going to mass in an attempt to get a recommendation letter. Here are a couple of the quotes from these "devout Catholics":
The story about Peter and Jesus walking across the water, my friend doesn’t believe that at all but she would teach it because she’s fully aware there are no jobs

I don’t particularly like going (to Mass) every Sunday, but if this is what I have to do, then I’ll do it
Why not just hire people that aren't Catholic? What's the point in having your teachers faking it? Just make it so they can't talk about anything un-Catholic without being fired and all will be fine. If they're that desperate for a job I think they'll be able to keep their mouth shut for a couple of hours a day.

(via The Star)

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

248: Rinse and Repeat

Ezekiel 21-22
"The word of the Lord came to me: 'Son of man' ... " - Ezekiel 21:1; "The word of the Lord came to me: 'Son of man' ... " - Ezekiel 21:18; "The word of the Lord came to me: 'Son of man' ... " - Ezekiel 22:1; "Again the word of the Lord came to me: 'Son of man' ... " - Ezekiel 22:23 [ ... to infinity ... ]

We have a very short an uneventful bible section today.

In chapter 21 God again says that he is going to use Babylon to destroy the Israelites. Not to open up an old thread, but this is just further evidence that God is using Babylon to destroy Israel, not just allowing Babylon to invade. Recall that, in the end, God destroys Babylon for being bad to the Israelites (i.e. following his orders).

The second chapter for today is God repeating all of Israel's sins. Oppressing aliens, mistreating widows, having sex with women on their period, and eating in shrines are among the offences listed. God says that, because of this, Israel is useless to him and will be destroyed.

I don't think a single new idea was brought up today.

I thought I'd switch it up today and give you an opinion letter from a Christian I actually agree with.
I truly couldn’t believe all three reverends published on an April 25 Opinion page were so condemning of homosexuals (“Bible clearly against homosexuality,” “Do not condemn, but gay behavior still a sin,” and “ELCA must repent for turning back on God”). Apparently they have forgotten that Jesus’ primary message was to love one another and to leave the judging to God.
I haven't gotten to the Jesus part yet, so I'll have to take her word for it. I don't think I would have such a problem with Christianity if there were more outspoken Christians like this one (it'd be nice if they threw out the old testament too).
And as far as Paul disapproving of homosexuals, he also felt pretty much the same way about women preaching. And that was Paul speaking, not Jesus. Jesus surrounded himself by women and treated women and all others equally. Paul’s teachings on women, homosexuals, et al, reflected the mores of the time and are no more relevant to us than many of the other first-century standards he addressed, such as dress, social etiquette and dietary rules. We cannot pick and choose which of Paul’s teachings to follow, as these three pastors have done. But we can follow Jesus’ teachings. And he never is quoted as saying that homosexuals are sinners.
I'm surprised at the massive disconnect between different Christians. Every time I talk to a new person/church I feel like I need 20 questions to determine who they are/what they believe. Some believe in evolution, some don't. Some believe homosexuality is disgusting and want to put gay people on the fast track to hell. Others, like this writer, think everyone should be loved equally and unconditionally.

This really speaks to the cognitive dissonance in the bible. Two people/groups of people can read the same book and come back with polar opposite beliefs. The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that Jesus existed and became a zombie.

Monday, May 10, 2010

247: God is Unjust, According to God

Ezekiel 18-20
"He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people." - Ezekiel 18:17-18

In chapter 18 God objects to the Israelites using the proverb "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." This proverb is used to mean that when a father sins, his children (as well as he) will receive God's punishment. So what's God's objection? He clearly states that he will punish children for their father's sin in Exodus:
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me - Exodus 20:5
Fast forward to now, and God spends a whole chapter explaining why punishing children for their father's sins would be unjust. Which is it, God? Are you punishing the kids to the third and fourth generation, or just the fathers?

Chapter 19 compares Israel to a lioness and a vine (again). The lioness has all her cubs killed or imprisoned, and the vine is burned and transplanted into the desert. I'm really getting sick of God's metaphor fetish.

In chapter 20, the elders of Israel come to Ezekiel to inquire of God. God says (through Ezekiel) that he will not allow them to inquire. God explains why he won't let them inquire by going on a long rant about how the Israelites defiled him in the desert. As in, on the way to the promised land? What happened to not punishing the children/descendants of bad people. By not letting these Israelites (distant descendants of the Israelites in the desert) inquire of him, he is punishing them for their forefather's sins. God is again unjust, according to his own standards.

At the end of the chapter God says, "Go and serve your idols, every one of you! But afterward you will listen to me and no longer profane my holy name with your gifts and idols." Could God possibly be any more whiny and immature? I've had middle school squabbles with similar endings. "Fine! Do it, I don't care!" I can appreciate God's frustration, Israel won't follow his ridiculous laws, but that's no excuse for an all powerful being to devolve into a bratty tween. Unfortunately, God's immature frustration usually ends with the murder of thousands.

This is a short letter to the editor today, but it's full of idiocy.
The 13th chapter of Romans tells us what we must do about the immigration law: "We must obey the law." The Bible says, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers (governments) for they are servants of God to punish evil doers. If you resist the governments, you resist an ordinance of God; and will receive damnation, for they do not bear God's sword in vain."
This is cherry picking if I've ever seen it. There are also passages that say the edges of everyone's field should be left for the alien and the poor. Most illegal immigrants fall under both of these categories. What if the government declared that everyone was to be an atheist? Would Christians be bound by that law as it says in the bible? Oh right, I've forgotten the first rule of Christianity, only be a biblical literalist when it furthers your political/economic goals. Silly me.

In his last paragraph he gets a little off track (i.e. not about the bible) but the stupid is too great to not comment on:
If an officer stops you and asks to see your driver's license and car insurance, he is just doing his job. But if he asks if you are a citizen, he profiled you. That is really, really dumb. He is still just doing his job. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any different.
This is, of course, in reference to Arizona's new ridiculous law allowing officers to search or even detain people that look like illegals. Unfortunately for this writer, he forgot to actually read his Constitution before commenting on it. I'll quote the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Skin color or appearance is not probable cause, and it's certainly not an oath or affirmation that the person in question is an illegal immigrant. Sorry, the Constitution clearly states otherwise.

(via Yuma Sun)

Sunday, May 9, 2010

246: If You're a Prostitute, Be an Expensive One

Ezekiel 16-17
"You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband! Every prostitute receives a fee, but you give gifts to all your lovers, bribing them to come to you from everywhere for your illicit favors. So in your prostitution you are the opposite of others; no one runs after you for your favors. You are the very opposite, for you give payment and none is given to you." - Ezekiel 16:32-34

There's not too much to say about the bible today. The first chapter is a rolling personification/metaphor about Jerusalem. Jerusalem is personified as a woman and God complains about how she's become a whore. In fact, God says she's not even a good whore because she doesn't charge money. He goes on to say that every prostitute receives money, but Jerusalem just receives gifts. So prostitutes are better if they accept money? I don't know what else he could be trying to say. The conclusion is that, like any adulteress, God is going to kill Jerusalem (or Jerusalem's inhabitants in this case).

The second chapter is God comparing the Israelites to a vine. Don't forget that just yesterday God called vines the most useless plant. The gist of the story is that Israel is going to die when it's transplanted to Babylon. In the end God says he will plant Israel at the top of a high mountain and Israel will thrive. That's unless the people of Israel decide to be naughty again, of course.

We have a trifecta of fundie today. This is all in response to an article about a biology book calling creationism a "myth".

The first of three letters to the editor starts out bad:
To be a scientific fact it must be provable, observable and reproducible. Micro-evolution meets these criteria. Evolution as an explanation for origins, though, requires hundreds of assumptions and is no more provable, observable and reproducible than biblical creation.
Unfortunately, "micro-evolution" is a fallacy. There is no scientific distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. The only difference is time and scale (more information). He goes on to complain that scientist throw around "millions of years" too much. As if scientists just believe without basis that the earth is billions of years old (still more information). He goes on to cite the validity of the bible:
Hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before "scientists" discovered the circulatory system, germs, nutrition and the need for quarantine, biblical writers wrote on these matters. The Bible teaches that earth is floating in space; it's round; the stars are innumerable. How did those "uneducated" writers know about these scientific matters hundreds of years before scientists discovered them? Because the Bible was written by the author of all science (God, Himself). These "facts" argue for the existence of God and for the accuracy and authority of the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but it is accurate on all matters to which it speaks (including science).
First of all, none of these things are very remarkable. Second, and more importantly, he doesn't cite the biblical passages that point to these revelations. I'm 2/3 of the way through the bible and I've never heard any mention of the earth being round, the earth floating in space. The bible does mention that the stars are "innumerable". Assuming they don't mean that the stars are uncountable (which isn't true), then innumerable just means there are a lot of them. I think we can all determine that by walking outside at night and looking up.

Unfortunately, this person is not the only one with a woeful (willful?) ignorance of evolution:
He assumes that evolution is a scientific hypothesis that is repeatable and therefor a theory. This is where I take exception. The evolution dogma of "goo to zoo to you," that life is somehow over millions (or is it billions now?) of years old (has) no place in the scientific method. Evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. As such, teaching evolution as theory and/or fact should have no place in academia.
Speciation (not evolution) would be unobservable but for the fact that we have thousands, if not millions, of fossils. Evolution, however, is observable in many forms. The mutation of new bacteria/viruses, making them immune to new forms of antibiotics/vaccines is evolution. The great variety of dogs (through the use of artificial selection) is evolution. I'm not sure why creationists think evolution is some sort of conspiracy. What would be the goal?

This last letter is my favorite, it's titled "Creationism will remain a 'myth' until proven".
During the 1950s the British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle considered the Big Bang hypothesis a myth because of the lack of empirical evidence to support it. By the late 1960s enough evidence existed to promote the Big Bang to become a bona fide scientific theory even in Hoyle's eyes.
You know what? I agree. Creationism is a hypothesis. But it has to be put in the same category as my hypothesis that I am the greatest person alive today (in that there is no evidence for either).
When creationism is injected into the scientific arena to compete with evolutionary theory as an explanation of biological phenomena it can only be considered a myth because of the lack of any empirical evidence supporting it; and because of its reliance on the supernatural intervention of God cannot, by definition, be considered a scientific hypothesis to be tested by the scientific method.
Wait, what side is this guy on? He just argued for most of his letter that creationism should be a hypothesis, but now it can't possibly be a hypothesis because God is supernatural? You can't have it both ways.

In the end, all three of these letters summarize better than I ever could about why we need good biology books (i.e. biology books that aren't afraid to call creationism a "myth"). These people have clearly not been properly educated on what evolution actually means.


Copyright © 2009, Page Info, Contact Me